The Second Amendment---Broken down

We have all been so brain washed that we are a democracy, we have become to believe it. The word democracy is not even in the Constitution. Today we are nothing but a mess. When the Constitution was drafted it was done with the intent of the states having certain rights and the people having certain rights separate and apart from the states. The states, up until 1913, sent their Representatives (senators) to congress and NOT by a popular vote of the people. The Tenth Amendment makes it clear. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Meaning "state rights" and "people rights". The second amendment give the states the right to a militia and it not only gives the people the right to keep but also to bear arms and those rights shall not be infringed. In my opinion the founding fathers also knew that arms may be improved through technology and as such I don't think it was in their thinking that the people's arms would or could be limited to only be a flintlock. Do you think congress would be doing what they are doing to us if several of us had a few F18 instead a few million semi auto guns. While that may sound crazy what does the 60 trillion dollars in debt those bastards in congress have left our posterity to deal with sound like.

bcj1775: Dude, you're just, well, not well informed. You have no clue of that which you speak. I'm not gonna bother replying to you again, nor even reading your posts. Don't bother, you just know everything and are way too smart for me. Give yourself a cookie and gold star. Try getting an education before you speak on things of which you know not. Hey, good job on the spelling though, I will give you that.

Harballer: Well, actually I did my own research when I was in law school. And also when I majored in political science in college, minor in American history. Where are these letters in re; 2nd Amen debate? Constitutional scholars would love to have them. Are they opinions or are they transcripts of the congressional debates? Not debates, pro/con among the states and people, but what actally transpired in the 1st Congress? Obviously, you have something which could have settled this issue well over 100 yrs. ago and have been hidden for years from historians. Please direct me to them.

I may be in the minority relative to the general public, but the public hardly is constituted of legal scholars. As far as legal scholars go, well hey, I've just got to inform the professors at SLU School of Law about this, may I quote you. I'm sure they'll take your word for it. Actually, you do raise a valid point, there are more cont. scholars today taking your view, but they are hardly in the majority. Of course, they don't count. What does count is 5 people in black robes, and I'm hoping they will take your view. Remember, I'm in favor of gun ownership & concealed carry. I own well over 50 guns myself. I'm just saying what the general consensus of legal scholars has been. Not making it up, it is history.

Actually, "regulated" meant both "governed/controlled" and "functioning" back then, same as it does now. Often words have more than one meaning, this is where the ambiguity comes in.

You are correct that the Const. was tried to be written in common language. But often words in their common or "vulgar" useage are vague and have a less precise definition (because of the ambiguity of the vulgar usage)[and before I get hate mail, look up vulgar] it cannot be helped than to use their more precise meaning in legal documents. This is to preclude misunderstandings (due to the verbiage) from arising later. Words used with specificity are less likely to be misinterpreted later on, that is why they are employed in legal documents.

Now, Hardballer, and I see from your post that you are a fairly reasoned man, so please answer me this; how can the Cons. grant an individual the right to own a gun when it did not even grant an individual the right to free speech, or to practice one's religion, the right to a jury trial, etc? How is that possible? Did you see the part in my post about the "incorporation" controversy?"

Right now, I've been kept from my bourbon long enough and I have a Merle Haggard DVD to watch. Me out now.

Oh geez, I've just seen a few more posts since I completed my last one. I'll get back to you in a couple of days (maybe sooner if I get online again before that), but I'm gonna do some drinkin' and watch Merle now. Hate me in the meantime and keep your ire up.

No, screw Merle for now. I'm up for a bit more. I need about 7 shots of R&R. and I'll be back. Stay tuned.

bcj1775: Dude, you're just, well, not well informed. You have no clue of that which you speak. I'm not gonna bother replying to you again, nor even reading your posts. Don't bother, you just know everything and are way too smart for me. Give yourself a cookie and gold star. Try getting an education before you speak on things of which you know not. Hey, good job on the spelling though, I will give you that.

Click to expand...

Oh look, someone dares to doubt his supposed knowledge of the Constitution and suddenly he doesn't want to talk any more. So he just resorts to insults and belitting others. Typical liberal. You know, I'm not the one with the supposed law school education that's having my posts picked apart by people who supposedly know nothing about the Constitution. I'm not the one claiming to have an extensive education and using that claim to elevate myself over others. I'm not the one that is making blatently wrong statements about the intent of the Founding Fathers. I'm not the one that sounds like I've never read the Constitution. I'm not the one that claims to be a constitutional scholar but is having my "logic" and "knoweledge" torn apart by others.

And who are these 5 people in black robes of whom you speak? Do you mean SCOTUS? As a lawyer and constituional scholar, you should know that there are 9, yes NINE, people in black robes on SCOTUS.

But, if you want to ignore my posts, go right ahead. Your "knowledge" was entertaining and amusing. Thanks for the laughs.

So true. I guess Obama and belercous really did go to the same school. They seem to have the same level of constitutional knowledge

"What does count is 5 people in black robes, and I'm hoping they will take your view" and "I've camapigned in 57 states. I think I have one more to go" both sound like the musings of brilliant law school grads

Hardballer: Well, actually I did my own research when I was in law school.

Click to expand...

Come on, 'Dude', You have got to be kidding me. try clicking the links I provided, then find and read the quotes on the Second Amendment attributed to many of the Founders.

If you are a Lawyer, that is your first mistake.

As for debates in congress, they had no need to debate the 2nd Amendment because it was so obviously needed by the people in a country, of the people, by the people, for the people.

I know this is a hard concept for you just being out of Lawyer school and all. Even rectal thermometers have degrees. But in every line of the Constitution, it is about the people. See above. Of the people, by the people, for the people. It means us simply us. How much plainer can it get?

Oh. . . I almost forgot, your a lawyer. That explains everything. For you, we probably have to define the word "it".

On another note, running away or hiding from the truth will not serve you well. Stand up, be a man, enjoin the debate here and if I were you, I don't think I would tell anybody else you went to Law school It's not a asset in the real world.

I'm much better now, but that is debatable. My spelling may suffer, and my liver certainly will, but "Hey, I'm Baaack." It is difficult being a liberal in a conservative echo-chamber, but seeing as there are some here who appear to be reasonable people, I'm up for my fair share of abuse, at least for now. I know that I'm not gonna sway opinions, but this whole forum seems to be totally one-sided, and I thought I'd bring a little balance. Very little if one goes by the opinion polls current today.

Marlin T: Yes, I said that. A court that overturns precedent is considered activist. That's what conservatives mean by it, so I'm just using their definition. Actually, it's a valid definition/description.
The Court was activist when it ruled in Brown v. Board of Education. Remember that one? It held that (de jure, not de facto) segregated schools were unconstitutional. The law of the land (Plessy v. Ferguson [sp?]) in 1954 was that "seperate but equal" was constitutional, the settled law of the land. Divining the framers intent of the 14th Amen. was a no-brainer. In the congressional debates concerning the 14th Amen., the specific question was asked "Does this mean that white children will have to sit next to colored children in school?" The answer was a resounding "No." So, going into 1954 we had clear congressional intent and clear prior S.C. precedent saying that "seperate but equal" was what the Const. meant. The Court, by a 9-0 vote, overturned this decision. Clearly an activist court. I mention this to demonstrate why an "activist" court is not always a bad thing. Or is there someone out there who can argue against this blatantly activist decision? Racists, speak up. Now is your time to shine.

And yes, I'm not a single-issue voter, I have many more interests than guns. If my interests in life were confined soley to firearms, I couldn't consider that much of a life. Not for me anyway, if others primary concern in life is guns, well I wish them the best and hope they are happy. I love guns, but they are not my sole all-consuming issue in life, I have other things to do. Guns are a part of my life, but by no means everything my life revolves around. It just so happens that the Democratic party represents my interests way more than the Republican party, at least now a days. I certainly don't agree with every aspect of the Dems., but the Reps. represent my views even less.

If you think the Republican party defends the Const., Then we obviously have differing views on what the Const. means. The Rep. party just hates giving crimminal defendants rights. Never mind that they are only "accused," they are not deserving of rights because they are guilty. (Why else would they have been arrested? Circular reasoning) If you think the Republican party represents the rights granted in the Const, (outside of the 2nd and 10th) you really haven't been up on politics in the last 40+ years.

John Brainard:No, the gov. might do something uncostitutional, but legal. The courts will keep them from enforcing an uncostitutional act. The gov. won't do something (usually) because it's illegal. If something is in violation of the law, it is illegal. If something (and it often has been a law) is in violation of the Cons., it cannot be enforced by the courts. An unconstitutional law is invalid, same as an illegal law. Neither can be enforced by the courts. Sometimes courts will enforce an illegal law, or unconstitutional law, but that is why we have appellate courts, and the S.C. Yes, it can be confusing, but I think we are on the same page.

Muddobber: Nobody with any idea about political systems would ever say that we are a democracy. Never have been, never will be. Only the uneducated or fools could believe this. We are a republic, this is common knowledge. Yeah, I know all about how Senators used to be appointed, no surprise to me, you are correct so far. Constitutionaly speaking (and I don't agree with this, but just sayin') the 10th Amen. means nothing. Try arguing a case before the S.C. on 10th Amen. grounds, likely you won't win. The 10th Amen. has been shunted aside and forgotten. For all intents and purposes, it means nothing.

Look, what I think of the 2nd Amen. counts for squat. If we were to use the Founding Fasthers intent,. and follow it thru to its natural outcome, in re: 2nd Amen., and let's just say for the sake of argument that it only applied to the states (the status quo today), well Oklahoma would be entitled to have an atom bomb. And ICBM's too. Do you see how this could be a problem?

Now, let's consider if this right were granted to the individual. Well, Bill gates could own the bomb, perhaps Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg as well. Or anybody else wealthy enough to afford it. It would be one's right under the 2nd Amen., if the 2nd Amen. granted an individual the right to keep & bear arms, and this right was understanding of the Const. as being static. Does anyone see a problem with this? I mean a constitutional problem, not an actual problem?

When the 2nd Amen. was adopted, militias had the same arms that regular armies did. Now, if we want to adopt the view (as some on this forum do) that the Const. is a static document (meaning that we cannot go beyond what the Framers intended at its adoption, not a living document as is the prevelant view today), no, Oklahoma could not have the bomb or ICBMs. They weren't around back in 1787(89), so the Const. could not possibly speak about them. As such, they could be regulated or denied.

Alright, now let' assume that the Const. means the same thing now as it did in 1789. Cartridge rifles were not extant then, so under a "static" Const., no right to own one. My piont here is, if we were to adopt a constructional interpretation of the Const. as rigid, or "static," we would, even granted the personal right (incorporated to the states) only be allowed to own flint-lock guns.

Such are the logical ramifications of the arguments in re; 2nd Amen.

Now, I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate mail posts because of this, but it is reality. Please try to find fault with my arguments, but I'll only respond, non-dismissively or non-sarcasticlly, to those who can posit a reasoned argument. It might take a couple of days for my diesel-powered computator to gets back up online, but I'll check here soon. And If I don't reply to you, consider that I don't consider you in my league, much less worth my time.
I welcome well-reasoned debate (how else can I learn?), and have been known to concede a point when I'm wrong. However, I do not suffer fools, or those who make-up their own facts, gladly. And, once again, this thread is about the 2nd Amen., not tangential (unless germane) issues.

Ooh, geez, don't you people go to bed? I'm trying, and after what I've drank, its easy.
Alright.

Hardballer: Yes, I have read that years ago. What you are citing is one primarily one view and the others, simply are not credible sources. The actual congressional deliberatations were never put down for posterity. In so much as the Const. goes, the best source we have for the actual debates are James Madison's notes. And as much as it may surprise you, Conress actualy did debate things back then, most especially when the Const. was about to be altered.

By the way, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. I have the same training a lawyer does, but I'm not a lawyer.

I'm so glad that you "KNOW" what the Constitution means, all them edumacated S.C. justices for well over 200 yrs. don't have the insight that you posess. You must have been born with a silver gun in your mouth to have such a superior understanding of the Const., history, fact and reality be damned.

Marlin T: I have no idea about what you mean. Oh yeah, I see now. He isn't not oo brights is he? Good catch.

belercous: Read Federalist Paper No. 29. It gives Hamilton's take on militias and allowing individuals to own firearms. It shows, IMHO, that the 2nd Amendment was viewed by at least one founding father to be a necessary individual right.

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

belercous: I agree that the Constitution mandated that we were to be a Republic. The first sentence of Article 4. section 4. makes that clear as stated in part "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,". I believe that the 17th amendment passed in 1913 "bastardized" our union so that is it neither a republic nor a democracy. The states are simply no longer represented thereby killing the mandated republican form of government as guaranteed by Article 4 section 4 and the people of the several states cannot vote for those states Representatives(the senate), thereby killing the concept of a democracy. My point is that the Constitution has or lets say HAD a common thread whereby the states where considered separate and apart from the people and in my view the four best places to see that common thread as it weaves through the Constitution is in Article 1 section 3. which provides for senators to be appointed into office by their respective states legislature, Article 4. section 4 as mentioned, the 10th amendment and the second amendment. As I am sure you are aware the senate was constitutionally designed to watch over the house being their check so the peoples Representatives did not get out of hand pandering to only what the people want, IE. spend, spend, spend, to the point of bankrupting the United States which I don't believe would have happened if the states had been represented. Today the senate, now made up of persons voted into office by the people of their state although still constitutionally mandated to look over the House's shoulder, is like asking a coyote to look after your chickens. This has been known to be a problem since around 550 to 600 BC as warned by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle that a democracy fails when the people can get their hands on the treasury of their government through their elected officials. I could not even dream up a better case in point or a scenario than what we are experiencing at this very moment.

The Court was activist when it ruled in Brown v. Board of Education. Remember that one? It held that (de jure, not de facto) segregated schools were unconstitutional. The law of the land (Plessy v. Ferguson [sp?]) in 1954 was that "seperate but equal" was constitutional, the settled law of the land. Divining the framers intent of the 14th Amen. was a no-brainer. In the congressional debates concerning the 14th Amen., the specific question was asked "Does this mean that white children will have to sit next to colored children in school?" The answer was a resounding "No." So, going into 1954 we had clear congressional intent and clear prior S.C. precedent saying that "seperate but equal" was what the Const. meant. The Court, by a 9-0 vote, overturned this decision. Clearly an activist court. I mention this to demonstrate why an "activist" court is not always a bad thing. Or is there someone out there who can argue against this blatantly activist decision? Racists, speak up. Now is your time to shine.

Click to expand...

See, there he goes using another standard liberal tactic...using the dreaded "R" word

And yes, I'm not a single-issue voter, I have many more interests than guns. If my interests in life were confined soley to firearms, I couldn't consider that much of a life. Not for me anyway, if others primary concern in life is guns, well I wish them the best and hope they are happy. I love guns, but they are not my sole all-consuming issue in life, I have other things to do. Guns are a part of my life, but by no means everything my life revolves around. It just so happens that the Democratic party represents my interests way more than the Republican party, at least now a days. I certainly don't agree with every aspect of the Dems., but the Reps. represent my views even less.

Click to expand...

We still haven't seen any definative proof that you even own guns. You have zero credibility in that department because your only purpose here is to "teach" us the glory of Obama. Want to prove me wrong? How about you answer my earlier questions from another thread

So tell us, since you love guns so much, how many guns do you own? What's your favorite gun? How often do you shoot? What gun(s) did you use when you supposedly taught other liberals how to shoot? Do you have a concealed carry permit? Do you own a firearm for defensive purposes? How long have you been shooting? How did you learn to shoot? What are your feelings about national gun registration? Would you go along with it? What about gun confiscations? Would you submit to a gun confiscation? What are your feelings about the "national security force" that Obama says we need?

Click to expand...

I'm sure as a supposed law school grad, you know all about questioning someone to pin them down

John Brainard:No, the gov. might do something uncostitutional, but legal. The courts will keep them from enforcing an uncostitutional act. The gov. won't do something (usually) because it's illegal. If something is in violation of the law, it is illegal. If something (and it often has been a law) is in violation of the Cons., it cannot be enforced by the courts. An unconstitutional law is invalid, same as an illegal law. Neither can be enforced by the courts. Sometimes courts will enforce an illegal law, or unconstitutional law, but that is why we have appellate courts, and the S.C. Yes, it can be confusing, but I think we are on the same page.

Click to expand...

Circular argument and flawed logic. If our law is based on the Constitution, but a law is passed that is unconstitutional, then it cannot be legal. Just because the gov't can do something does NOT make it right. Taking your "logic" to it's ultimate conclusion, then the gov't is infallible. Also, going by your reasoning, then everything the Nazis did was "legal" because it was all done under the guise of a government. You claim the gov't won't do something illegal? The ATF's actions at Ruby Ridge come to mind. The government's actions at Waco come to mind. How about the abuses of power committed by crooked cops? Last time I checked, the police were part of the government. How about all the illegal actions taken by members of Congress? Last time I checked, they were also part of the government. How about Obama sitting as head of the UN Security Council? That is illegal also. Don't believe me?

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. - Article I, Section 9, Para 8, US Constitution

Click to expand...

Uh oh, there I go quoting that pesky Constitution again. I guess I should just bow down to your knowledge and believe everything you say

Muddobber: Nobody with any idea about political systems would ever say that we are a democracy. Never have been, never will be. Only the uneducated or fools could believe this. We are a republic, this is common knowledge. Yeah, I know all about how Senators used to be appointed, no surprise to me, you are correct so far. Constitutionaly speaking (and I don't agree with this, but just sayin') the 10th Amen. means nothing. Try arguing a case before the S.C. on 10th Amen. grounds, likely you won't win. The 10th Amen. has been shunted aside and forgotten. For all intents and purposes, it means nothing.

Click to expand...

Correct, we are not a democracy. But guess who started the concept that we were. Marxists. Marxists that infiltrated the colleges of this country.

The creation of the current confusion developed as a result of a new movement in the United States. Approximately 100 people met in New York in 1905 and organized what they called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS). Chapters were established on more than sixty college and university campuses coast-to-coast. In time the co-directors if the movement became Harry W. Laidler and Norman Thomas. Laidler explained that the ISS was set up to "throw light on the world-wide movement of industrial DEMOCRACY known as socialism. - The New York Times, 28 Jan, 1919

Click to expand...

What was this new movement attempting to accomplish? Socialism is defined as "government ownership or control of all the means of production (farms, factories, mines, and natural resources) and all the means of distribution (transportation, communications, and the instruments of commerce)." Obviously, this is not a "democracy" in the classical sense. And it is the very antithesis of a free-market economy in a republic. - The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, pg. 156

Click to expand...

Why do I bring that up? Remember this quote I posted earlier...

"The Utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams

Click to expand...

Read carefully the definition of "socialism" given by Skousen. Now, compare that with what the gov't is doing currently. Gov't "bailouts" of major industries such as the banks, auto makers, etc. The FCC trying to force "diversity" onto media and the internet. Gee, it sure looks like socialism to me. And socialism is UNCOSTITUTIONAL, and therefore ILLEGAL, yet the gov't is practicing it. So tell me again how the gov't won't do anything illegal

Constitutionaly speaking (and I don't agree with this, but just sayin') the 10th Amen. means nothing. Try arguing a case before the S.C. on 10th Amen. grounds, likely you won't win. The 10th Amen. has been shunted aside and forgotten. For all intents and purposes, it means nothing.

Click to expand...

Yet again you say the 10th Amendment means nothing, but yet here you say

One of the things taught in law schools is that every word of the Constitution is there for areason. The Founding Fathers deliberated over every word, and they knew the meaning of the words they used. They did not put in "extranoius" verbiage, so every word should (ought) to mean something.

Click to expand...

So in one instance you say that everything in the Constitution has meaning, but in another you say that a part of the Constitution has no meaning Well, which is it?

Alright, now let' assume that the Const. means the same thing now as it did in 1789. Cartridge rifles were not extant then, so under a "static" Const., no right to own one. My piont here is, if we were to adopt a constructional interpretation of the Const. as rigid, or "static," we would, even granted the personal right (incorporated to the states) only be allowed to own flint-lock guns.

Click to expand...

Ok, since you claim you minored in American History, you would know that the most common privately owned weapon at the time was the British Brown Bess musket. You would also know that the general issue weapon to the British Army was the Brown Bess musket. So logically, therefore, the Founding Fathers knew when they wrote the 2nd, that they were protecting the rights of the people to own military weaponry. So therefore, your attempt to argue that a "static" Constitution would only allow us to own flintlock muskets is wrong. The orginal intent of the 2nd was to allow the people to be armed in order to not only prevent a tyrannical gov't from imposing it's will on the people, but also so the armed populace could form the militia for national defence. A body of people used for national defense would be less that useless if not armed with the most modern military weaponry and trained in it's use.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people - Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Click to expand...

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. - Tenche Coxe

Click to expand...

...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #29

Click to expand...

Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped. - Alexander Hamilton

Click to expand...

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms. - Richard Harry Lee

Click to expand...

A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country. - James Madison

Click to expand...

As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia. - James Madison

Click to expand...

I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people. - George Mason

Click to expand...

From all of those quotes, you can derive one common theme, that ALL citizens were expected to compose the militia, and that the militia was to be trained and armed exactly as a regular, full-time, standing army. Therefore, it was the Founding Fathers' intention that all citizens would have access to military training and weaponry.

Please try to find fault with my arguments, but I'll only respond, non-dismissively or non-sarcasticlly, to those who can posit a reasoned argument.

Click to expand...

You ask us to try and find fault in your posts, yet you become insulting when I and others do just that. Additionally, I have yet to see a post of yours that is NOT dismissive, sarcastic, or to see one that is a reasoned argument.

And If I don't reply to you, consider that I don't consider you in my league, much less worth my time.
I welcome well-reasoned debate (how else can I learn?), and have been known to concede a point when I'm wrong. However, I do not suffer fools, or those who make-up their own facts, gladly.

Click to expand...

And here you go again trying to elevate yourself intellectually above others. I really enjoyed this part...

However, I do not suffer fools, or those who make-up their own facts, gladly.

Click to expand...

. You say that, yet you continually make up your own facts.

By the way, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. I have the same training a lawyer does, but I'm not a lawyer.

Click to expand...

If that's true, then how did you make the money to supposedly retire before you were 30? I think my previous thought on that matter was correct. You know, the one where I stated that you must be slinging some hardcore primo good dope, and partaking of it yourself.

Marlin T: I have no idea about what you mean. Oh yeah, I see now. He isn't not oo brights is he? Good catch.

Click to expand...

Apparently, neither are you, what with your "5 people in black robes" comment. And I think you posted a coherent thought in that one. "He isn't not oo brights is he?" Another nugget of pure intellect from belercous.

You know, I don't blame you for wanting to ignore my posts. If I were you, I'd also ignore my posts. I'm ever so sorry that I actually use facts to back up my arguments and I'm really sorry that I have proof to back up my facts. I guess I should just start claiming to be a constitutional scholar like you and expect everyone to take what I say as gospel. Just because you claim to be a constitutional scholar and law school grad, does not make it fact. I could claim to be Khavek IV, Emperor of the Klingon Empire, but that doesn't make it true. You claim to have an extensive legal education, yet someone with only a high school education has continually proven you wrong. Whoever paid for your supposed education got ripped off.

Hope you don't mind my two cents, but I find the Constitution to be very self explanatory, if a little bit hard to read because of the language. Just read it as is and there you have it. And the second amendment says, in part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! And there was very good reason for this, and still is. And anybody who tries to take my "protection" away is asking for a severe case of lead poisoning! My apologies if I said anything I shouldn't have, but I have very strong feelings about this.

The reason the Supreme Court has not given the right to own guns to the people is that, to date, the 2nd Amen. has always been held by the court to be a collective right of the people, a right given to each state. Like the 3rd Amen. Admittedly, the wording of the 2nd. Amen. could be clearer. If it were this would have been hashed out a long time ago. It seems the trouble with interpreting the 2nd Amen. as an individual right has to do with its preamble "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.." Militias are not the same as me or you owning guns. Militias back then required certain responsibilities of their members, such as attendance at "musters." We have nothing like this in America today, but the Swiss model of militias are close to what our founders understanding of "militia" meant. The "security of a free state" part gives problems because it implies the right to own guns is granted for the benefit of the state, not individuals. The argument goes that if the Founding Fathers intended for individuals to own guns, they would have said so, but they didn't. They knew how to use words, they were the best, brightest and most edcuated people in America at that time.
"Bearing" arms meant, in 1789, carrying arms, as one would do at a militia muster. "Keeping" arms meant just that, keeping or owning them. The 2 words are not synonomous. The Founders (or so the prevailing wisdom of constituional scholars holds) did not put extraneous verbiage in the Constitution, every word has a meaning and no word is unneeded.

Click to expand...

Maybe you need to do some more research about SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment.

"Indeed, is not this so of acts done in the execution of any crime? Discharging a loaded pistol at a target is an innocent pastime; discharging a loaded pistol at a human being, with felonious intent, takes a quality from such intent and may constitute murder."

"If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world except Americans engaged in defending it, the same must be true of the companion civil-rights Amendments, for none of them is limited by its express terms, territorially or as to persons. Such a construction would mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and "werewolves" could require the American Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against "unreasonable" searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."

"The question, whether a law be void for its repugnancy to the constitution, is, at all times, a question of much delicacy, which ought seldom, if ever, to be decided in the affirmative in a doubtful case. The court, when impelled by duty to render such a judgment, would be unworthy of its station, could it be unmindful of the solemn obligations which that station imposes. But it is not on slight implication and vague conjecture that the legislature is to be pronounced to have transcended its powers, and its acts to be considered as void. The opposition between the constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other.

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

"The Constitution and laws of the United States "are the supreme law of the land," anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding." Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: "Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom....As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech are guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances, and to keep and bear arms, cannot be lawfully abridged or infringed...”

- CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY BY THE COURT, United States Circuit Court, DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, SPECIAL JULY TERM, PRESENT: HON. JOHN CATRON, An Associate Justice of Supreme Court of United States. 1861. JULY 10, 1861.

Like Us On Facebook!

The Firearms Forum is on online community for all gun enthusiasts. Join us to discuss firearms of all kinds, gun accessories, legal issues and more. Membership is free and we welcome all types of shooters, whether you're a novice or a pro. Come for the info, stay and make some friends.